On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 13:23 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27 2010 at 12:54pm -0400, > Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2010-09-28 01:41, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > Mike Snitzer reported that he has access to a device that supports thin > > > provisioning but does not use the Block Limits VPD page to indicate > > > discard granularity. Instead it reports a huge (1MB) physical block > > > size. That caused a bit of fallout in the topology stack which assumed a > > > physical block size of 4KiB or less. > > > > Fixing the overflow aside, I question the validity of setting the physical > > block size to something larger than PAGE_SIZE as there's no way that that > > could really work in the current kernel. > > > > I would suggest doing something similar as we do with other 'invalid' > > settings that we cannot honor, print a warning and drop the queue > > limits to PAGE_SIZE. > > I'm inclined to agree. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. > > But could this cap of PAGE_SIZE be enforced with a follow-on patch? Or > would you rather see it be dealt with in a single revised 2/2 patch? It's up to Jens, but I'd prefer, unless there's a very good reason, that the patches we put into the kernel be right first time around, since that generates a cleaner history and a better example should anyone go looking for one in the tree. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
